Judge orders Rent Board to collect evidence

By Niraj S. Desai

A Middlesex Superior Court judge has ordered the Cambridge Rent
Control Board to collect new evidence before deciding whether to grant MIT
removal permits for five rent-controlled houses on Blanche and Green
Streets.

Judge Robert Hallisey's action on Tuesday overruled the board's Feb. 1
decision to exclude the impact of MIT's University Park development from
its deliberations on the case. MIT and its developer, Forest City
Enterprises, plan to build a hotel and conference center -- part of the
$250 million development -- on the site of the houses.

Hallisey ordered the board to hold a fact-finding hearing soon in which
tenants would be allowed to present evidence of the negative impact of
University Park on affordable housing in the city. Only after that hearing
could the rent board vote on whether to grant the permits, which would
enable MIT to demolish three of the houses and move the other two in order
to make room for the hotel/conference center.

The rent board had actually granted MIT the removal permits last spring,
but that action was vacated by an October court decision. Judge Joseph
Mitchell ruled at the time that the board violated proper procedures by
excluding evidence of the negative impact of the development on housing,
while at the same time allowing evidence of the positive impact. Mitchell
ordered the board to hold a fact-finding hearing on the negative impact
before making a decision on the permits.

On Feb. 1, the rent board tried to comply with Mitchell's order by voting
to exclude evidence of both the negative and positive impacts of University
Park -- without holding a fact-finding hearing. Tenants argued that the
board, by not holding a hearing, had flouted Mitchell's order. They filed a
legal complaint, and on Tuesday Hallisey agreed with them.

Hallisey's action cancelled a hearing scheduled for Wednesday night in
which the rent board was supposed to review and possibly vote on MIT's
petition for removal permits.

The fact-finding hearing, which Hallisey limited to two and a half hours,
has not been scheduled yet.

"I hope that the rent board will get back to being a [neutral] party in
the case," said William S. Noble, one of the tenants. Noble believed that
the board had been trying too hard to accomodate MIT's wishes in its
previous actions.

Noble's sentiments were echoed by John L. Mason Jr., an attorney
representing two of the tenants. At times, "it felt like it was two against
one," Mason said, meaning the tenants were on one side, and MIT and the
rent board on the other.

The board ruled two weeks ago that University Park's effect on the city's
housing was not relevant to the case, and could do so again even after the
new fact-finding hearing is held. But Noble hoped that the evidence
produced by that hearing would compel board members to rethink their
positions on the relevance of the development to the case.

Mason rebutted the argument that granting the removal permits and
University Park's impact on city housing are separate issues. MIT wants to
remove the houses in order to make way for the development, and it is the
rent board's mission to try to preserve the city's affordable housing
stock, he said.

MIT spokesman Ronald P. Suduiko said it was up to the board to decide
whether evidence of University Park was relevant. But he added that MIT's
plans, rather than hurting the city's housing stock, would make a strong
contribution. Suduiko pointed out that, if granted the removal permits, MIT
would, in one way or another, replace the twelve rent-controlled apartments
in the five houses with eighteen rent-controlled apartments. Suduiko also
noted that 400 housing units are scheduled for inclusion in the University
Park development.